As ridiculous as it sounds, since the founding of Israel, the right wing governments have made more steps towards peace than the left wing ones:
Begin (one of the most right wing prime ministers Israel ever had) made peace with Egypt.
Netanyahu gave The Palestinians control over The holy city of Hebron in his first term as Prime Minister.
Ariel Sharon completely withdrew Israeli settlements and military from the Gaa strip in 2005.
That is just off the top of my head.
The way Israeli politics work, a right wing government has a much greater chance to implement peace with Israels neighbors than a left wing one.
This has to be one of the dumbest fucking posts I've ever seen on this forum. it shows nothing other than pure ignorance - it's almost like saying that Bush tried to do more for peace than Obama has. both haven't done shit, but Bush is obviously a deranged lunatic, much like Begin, Netanyahu, and Sharon (though left wing leaders in Israel are nowhere near as "peaceful" as Obama is, as sad as it is to say, since Israel is an apartheid terror state to begin with).
Anyway, you're absolutely deluded to suggest that guys like Begin, Netanyahu and Sharon have done ANYTHING for peace.
Begin: one of the most notorious terrorist thugs of Israel was responsible for the deir yassin massacre and the king david hotel bombing with his terror group the Irgun... quite the peaceful effort, no doubt. as prime minister, he may have signed a peace agreement with Egypt, but he promoted Israeli construction of settlements in the West Bank in Gaza, initiated the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 which led to an 18-year occupation and in the first few years of the war tens of thousands of innocent lives, the Sabra and Shatila massacre which left thousands of innocent Palestinian refugees dead... he was one the most raving lunatics and has so much blood on his hands, the fact that you would even consider this guy as responsible for peace is absolutely disturbing and speaks so much about you. you're willing to forgive any harm done to other Arabs by this man because he signed a peace agreement with Egypt - which he only did not because he was interested in peace but because he did not care for the Sinai and it was in his best interest to do so. thus, he, much like yourself, doesn't give a shit about anyone else other than Israel. why, after all these years, has Israel refused to withdraw from the Golan Heights if it would mean peace with Syria? it's because Israel wants that land. why does Israel refuse to withdraw from the West Bank if it would mean a two-state solution and an "end" to the conflict? it's because Israel wants that land.
Netanyahu: Not much else to say about this guy, he increased settlements at an insane rate during the 90s and helped kill the Oslo peace process after the former left-wing prime minister Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing nut. for more info on this guy why don't you watch the recently leaked video where he said all this himself? you probably did watch the video and saw nothing wrong with it.
Sharon: this guy is an absolute maniac and I hope God is torturing the shit out of him in his coma right now.
while I'm absolutely no fan of left-wing governments of Israel (or what they consider "left-wing") especially since the Gaza massacre occured DURING the tenure of such a government, right wing governments haven't done shit for peace! Israel by nature is not a peaceful country since, like most colonial powers, it requires the use of violence to subdue the land's native population.
I put in bold the part I want to address. This is really a naive statement:
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.
Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.
According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.
The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.
Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.30c
Do you really wanna get into this now? The fact that you're quoting Dennis Ross already shows enough, I'm just waiting for you to pull out some Martin Indyk quotes. The place of blame on Arafat for the failure of Camp David is an absolute lie.
The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations - that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 - prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.
Arafat wanted to pursue the intifada? The intifada had nothing to do with Arafat, it had everything to do with the fact that during the Oslo "peace" process, Israel was in fact exhausting and debilitating Palestinian society! As a result of settlement expansion, an increase in checkpoints, and limited movement, the Palestinian economy suffered tremendously during the Oslo period—more specifically, from 1996-1999 while Netanyahu was in office.
I recommend Robert Malley's take on the Camp David talks over Dennis Ross':
One huge reason why Palestinians want pre-conditions before talks is because, as Malley says regarding the failed Oslo process and the subsequent Camp David talks:
"If Israel still held on to land that was supposed to be turned over during the interim phase [after the 1998 Wye Agreement], then the Palestinians would have to negotiate over that land as well during permanent status negotiations. And while Barak claimed that unfulfilled interim obligations would be quickly forgotten in the event that the summit succeeded, Arafat feared that they might just as quickly be ignored in the event that it failed. In other words, Barak's seemed a take-it-or-leave-it proposition in which leaving it meant forsaking not only the permanent status proposal, but also a further withdrawal of Israeli forces, the Jerusalem villages, the prisoner releases, and other interim commitments. Worse, it meant being confronted with the new settlement units in areas that Barak self-confidently assumed would be annexed to Israel under a permanent status deal."
The Israelis thus have so many different trump cards. For example, halting settlement expansion should NOT be a negotiable issue, it should simply be stopped. Furthermore, how can you have permanent status negotiations regarding the status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank while Palestinians are being forcibly removed for Jewish settlers DURING these talks?? it's absolutely illogical.
Furthermore, since the Israelis had doubled the number of settlements by July 2000 since the beginning of the Oslo peace process it had been apparent for nearly seven years that Israel was not interested in a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories. Martin Indyk himself who is totally pro-Israeli is quoted as saying:
"Shlomo Ben-Ami [the Israeli negotiator] reported to [President Clinton] that he had put an Israeli map on the table that showed a Palestinian state in 86 percent of the West Bank but that Abu Ala [Ahmed Qurei; Palestinian negotiator] would not put a map down because he argued that the borders of the Palestinian state had already been established by U.N. Security Council resolutions, that is, the June 4, 1967, lines."
The Palestinians DID have a counter-solution, it was the same solution that the entire world has constantly called for, with minor adjustments. But the problem was that Israel's solution to the West Bank was horrible - anyone who looks at the maps they presented could see clearly.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
As ridiculous as it sounds, since the founding of Israel, the right wing governments have made more steps towards peace than the left wing ones:
Begin (one of the most right wing prime ministers Israel ever had) made peace with Egypt.
Netanyahu gave The Palestinians control over The holy city of Hebron in his first term as Prime Minister.
Ariel Sharon completely withdrew Israeli settlements and military from the Gaa strip in 2005.
That is just off the top of my head.
The way Israeli politics work, a right wing government has a much greater chance to implement peace with Israels neighbors than a left wing one.
This has to be one of the dumbest fucking posts I've ever seen on this forum. it shows nothing other than pure ignorance - it's almost like saying that Bush tried to do more for peace than Obama has. both haven't done shit, but Bush is obviously a deranged lunatic, much like Begin, Netanyahu, and Sharon (though left wing leaders in Israel are nowhere near as "peaceful" as Obama is, as sad as it is to say, since Israel is an apartheid terror state to begin with).
Anyway, you're absolutely deluded to suggest that guys like Begin, Netanyahu and Sharon have done ANYTHING for peace.
Begin: one of the most notorious terrorist thugs of Israel was responsible for the deir yassin massacre and the king david hotel bombing with his terror group the Irgun... quite the peaceful effort, no doubt. as prime minister, he may have signed a peace agreement with Egypt, but he promoted Israeli construction of settlements in the West Bank in Gaza, initiated the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 which led to an 18-year occupation and in the first few years of the war tens of thousands of innocent lives, the Sabra and Shatila massacre which left thousands of innocent Palestinian refugees dead... he was one the most raving lunatics and has so much blood on his hands, the fact that you would even consider this guy as responsible for peace is absolutely disturbing and speaks so much about you. you're willing to forgive any harm done to other Arabs by this man because he signed a peace agreement with Egypt - which he only did not because he was interested in peace but because he did not care for the Sinai and it was in his best interest to do so. thus, he, much like yourself, doesn't give a shit about anyone else other than Israel. why, after all these years, has Israel refused to withdraw from the Golan Heights if it would mean peace with Syria? it's because Israel wants that land. why does Israel refuse to withdraw from the West Bank if it would mean a two-state solution and an "end" to the conflict? it's because Israel wants that land.
Netanyahu: Not much else to say about this guy, he increased settlements at an insane rate during the 90s and helped kill the Oslo peace process after the former left-wing prime minister Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing nut. for more info on this guy why don't you watch the recently leaked video where he said all this himself? you probably did watch the video and saw nothing wrong with it.
Sharon: this guy is an absolute maniac and I hope God is torturing the shit out of him in his coma right now.
while I'm absolutely no fan of left-wing governments of Israel (or what they consider "left-wing") especially since the Gaza massacre occured DURING the tenure of such a government, right wing governments haven't done shit for peace! Israel by nature is not a peaceful country since, like most colonial powers, it requires the use of violence to subdue the land's native population.
I put in bold the part I want to address. This is really a naive statement:
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.
Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.
According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.
The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.
Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.30c
Do you really wanna get into this now? The fact that you're quoting Dennis Ross already shows enough, I'm just waiting for you to pull out some Martin Indyk quotes. The place of blame on Arafat for the failure of Camp David is an absolute lie.
The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations - that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 - prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.
Arafat wanted to pursue the intifada? The intifada had nothing to do with Arafat, it had everything to do with the fact that during the Oslo "peace" process, Israel was in fact exhausting and debilitating Palestinian society! As a result of settlement expansion, an increase in checkpoints, and limited movement, the Palestinian economy suffered tremendously during the Oslo period—more specifically, from 1996-1999 while Netanyahu was in office.
I recommend Robert Malley's take on the Camp David talks over Dennis Ross':
One huge reason why Palestinians want pre-conditions before talks is because, as Malley says regarding the failed Oslo process and the subsequent Camp David talks:
"If Israel still held on to land that was supposed to be turned over during the interim phase [after the 1998 Wye Agreement], then the Palestinians would have to negotiate over that land as well during permanent status negotiations. And while Barak claimed that unfulfilled interim obligations would be quickly forgotten in the event that the summit succeeded, Arafat feared that they might just as quickly be ignored in the event that it failed. In other words, Barak's seemed a take-it-or-leave-it proposition in which leaving it meant forsaking not only the permanent status proposal, but also a further withdrawal of Israeli forces, the Jerusalem villages, the prisoner releases, and other interim commitments. Worse, it meant being confronted with the new settlement units in areas that Barak self-confidently assumed would be annexed to Israel under a permanent status deal."
The Israelis thus have so many different trump cards. For example, halting settlement expansion should NOT be a negotiable issue, it should simply be stopped. Furthermore, how can you have permanent status negotiations regarding the status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank while Palestinians are being forcibly removed for Jewish settlers DURING these talks?? it's absolutely illogical.
Furthermore, since the Israelis had doubled the number of settlements by July 2000 since the beginning of the Oslo peace process it had been apparent for nearly seven years that Israel was not interested in a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories. Martin Indyk himself who is totally pro-Israeli is quoted as saying:
"Shlomo Ben-Ami [the Israeli negotiator] reported to [President Clinton] that he had put an Israeli map on the table that showed a Palestinian state in 86 percent of the West Bank but that Abu Ala [Ahmed Qurei; Palestinian negotiator] would not put a map down because he argued that the borders of the Palestinian state had already been established by U.N. Security Council resolutions, that is, the June 4, 1967, lines."
The Palestinians DID have a counter-solution, it was the same solution that the entire world has constantly called for, with minor adjustments. But the problem was that Israel's solution to the West Bank was horrible - anyone who looks at the maps they presented could see clearly.
It's posts like this that remind me why I started to ignore you a couple of weeks ago.
I have no problem with the things and issues that you bring up and could address them, but I do have a problem with the manner in which you choose to represent them (rude and hateful). There are plenty of members of this forum who have the same beliefs as you on this issue and believe in them as strongly as you do, but what makes them different from you is the way they carry themselves (gimmesometruth, polaris X, redrock, pepe...). It would do you some good to learn from them how to publicly debate some one who has different views than you on an intellectual base and not a pure emotional one. Until you do, I will go back to ignoring you.
Have a good weekend.
Still can't believe I met Mike Mccready at the Guggenheim and got a pic with him!!!!!
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
As ridiculous as it sounds, since the founding of Israel, the right wing governments have made more steps towards peace than the left wing ones:
Begin (one of the most right wing prime ministers Israel ever had) made peace with Egypt.
Netanyahu gave The Palestinians control over The holy city of Hebron in his first term as Prime Minister.
Ariel Sharon completely withdrew Israeli settlements and military from the Gaa strip in 2005.
That is just off the top of my head.
The way Israeli politics work, a right wing government has a much greater chance to implement peace with Israels neighbors than a left wing one.
This has to be one of the dumbest fucking posts I've ever seen on this forum. it shows nothing other than pure ignorance - it's almost like saying that Bush tried to do more for peace than Obama has. both haven't done shit, but Bush is obviously a deranged lunatic, much like Begin, Netanyahu, and Sharon (though left wing leaders in Israel are nowhere near as "peaceful" as Obama is, as sad as it is to say, since Israel is an apartheid terror state to begin with).
Anyway, you're absolutely deluded to suggest that guys like Begin, Netanyahu and Sharon have done ANYTHING for peace.
Begin: one of the most notorious terrorist thugs of Israel was responsible for the deir yassin massacre and the king david hotel bombing with his terror group the Irgun... quite the peaceful effort, no doubt. as prime minister, he may have signed a peace agreement with Egypt, but he promoted Israeli construction of settlements in the West Bank in Gaza, initiated the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 which led to an 18-year occupation and in the first few years of the war tens of thousands of innocent lives, the Sabra and Shatila massacre which left thousands of innocent Palestinian refugees dead... he was one the most raving lunatics and has so much blood on his hands, the fact that you would even consider this guy as responsible for peace is absolutely disturbing and speaks so much about you. you're willing to forgive any harm done to other Arabs by this man because he signed a peace agreement with Egypt - which he only did not because he was interested in peace but because he did not care for the Sinai and it was in his best interest to do so. thus, he, much like yourself, doesn't give a shit about anyone else other than Israel. why, after all these years, has Israel refused to withdraw from the Golan Heights if it would mean peace with Syria? it's because Israel wants that land. why does Israel refuse to withdraw from the West Bank if it would mean a two-state solution and an "end" to the conflict? it's because Israel wants that land.
Netanyahu: Not much else to say about this guy, he increased settlements at an insane rate during the 90s and helped kill the Oslo peace process after the former left-wing prime minister Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing nut. for more info on this guy why don't you watch the recently leaked video where he said all this himself? you probably did watch the video and saw nothing wrong with it.
Sharon: this guy is an absolute maniac and I hope God is torturing the shit out of him in his coma right now.
while I'm absolutely no fan of left-wing governments of Israel (or what they consider "left-wing") especially since the Gaza massacre occured DURING the tenure of such a government, right wing governments haven't done shit for peace! Israel by nature is not a peaceful country since, like most colonial powers, it requires the use of violence to subdue the land's native population.
I put in bold the part I want to address. This is really a naive statement:
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.
Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.
According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.
The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.
Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.30c
Do you really wanna get into this now? The fact that you're quoting Dennis Ross already shows enough, I'm just waiting for you to pull out some Martin Indyk quotes. The place of blame on Arafat for the failure of Camp David is an absolute lie.
The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations - that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 - prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.
Arafat wanted to pursue the intifada? The intifada had nothing to do with Arafat, it had everything to do with the fact that during the Oslo "peace" process, Israel was in fact exhausting and debilitating Palestinian society! As a result of settlement expansion, an increase in checkpoints, and limited movement, the Palestinian economy suffered tremendously during the Oslo period—more specifically, from 1996-1999 while Netanyahu was in office.
I recommend Robert Malley's take on the Camp David talks over Dennis Ross':
One huge reason why Palestinians want pre-conditions before talks is because, as Malley says regarding the failed Oslo process and the subsequent Camp David talks:
"If Israel still held on to land that was supposed to be turned over during the interim phase [after the 1998 Wye Agreement], then the Palestinians would have to negotiate over that land as well during permanent status negotiations. And while Barak claimed that unfulfilled interim obligations would be quickly forgotten in the event that the summit succeeded, Arafat feared that they might just as quickly be ignored in the event that it failed. In other words, Barak's seemed a take-it-or-leave-it proposition in which leaving it meant forsaking not only the permanent status proposal, but also a further withdrawal of Israeli forces, the Jerusalem villages, the prisoner releases, and other interim commitments. Worse, it meant being confronted with the new settlement units in areas that Barak self-confidently assumed would be annexed to Israel under a permanent status deal."
The Israelis thus have so many different trump cards. For example, halting settlement expansion should NOT be a negotiable issue, it should simply be stopped. Furthermore, how can you have permanent status negotiations regarding the status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank while Palestinians are being forcibly removed for Jewish settlers DURING these talks?? it's absolutely illogical.
Furthermore, since the Israelis had doubled the number of settlements by July 2000 since the beginning of the Oslo peace process it had been apparent for nearly seven years that Israel was not interested in a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories. Martin Indyk himself who is totally pro-Israeli is quoted as saying:
"Shlomo Ben-Ami [the Israeli negotiator] reported to [President Clinton] that he had put an Israeli map on the table that showed a Palestinian state in 86 percent of the West Bank but that Abu Ala [Ahmed Qurei; Palestinian negotiator] would not put a map down because he argued that the borders of the Palestinian state had already been established by U.N. Security Council resolutions, that is, the June 4, 1967, lines."
The Palestinians DID have a counter-solution, it was the same solution that the entire world has constantly called for, with minor adjustments. But the problem was that Israel's solution to the West Bank was horrible - anyone who looks at the maps they presented could see clearly.
It's posts like this that remind me why I started to ignore you a couple of weeks ago.
I have no problem with the things and issues that you bring up and could address them, but I do have a problem with the manner in which you choose to represent them (rude and hateful). There are plenty of members of this forum who have the same beliefs as you on this issue and believe in them as strongly as you do, but what makes them different from you is the way they carry themselves (gimmesometruth, polaris X, redrock, pepe...). It would do you some good to learn from them how to publicly debate some one who has different views than you on an intellectual base and not a pure emotional one. Until you do, I will go back to ignoring you.
Have a good weekend.
let's just get something cleared up on the word "emotional. are you using it as an antonym to "rational".
i don't call it emotional, i call it passionate. i mean we're not talking about something insignifant here. we're talking about an entire population of people who are being cruelly and inhumanely punished, the majority of whom are children.
passion is not ranting and raving. passion is believing in something so much, especially when you have facts to back it up, that comes out strongly when people are debating something as serious as this.
500,000 kids are involved. that's pretty serious don't you think.
let's just get something cleared up on the word "emotional. are you using it as an antonym to "rational".
i don't call it emotional, i call it passionate. i mean we're not talking about something insignifant here. we're talking about an entire population of people who are being cruelly and inhumanely punished, the majority of whom are children.
passion is not ranting and raving. passion is believing in something so much, especially when you have facts to back it up, that comes out strongly when people are debating something as serious as this.
500,000 kids are involved. that's pretty serious don't you think.
There is nothing wrong with being passionate. With that said, you can still be passionate while staying polite and civilized even if the other persons beliefs are opposite of your own. Sad to say that on too many posts outlaw has forgotten this. I prefer to engage in a civilized debate and not a hateful one that deteriorates to personal insults and things like:
There is nothing wrong with being passionate. With that said, you can still be passionate while staying polite and civilized even if the other persons beliefs are opposite of your own. Sad to say that on too many posts outlaw has forgotten this. I prefer to engage in a civilized debate and not a hateful one that deteriorates to personal insults and things like:
Sharon: this guy is an absolute maniac and I hope God is torturing the shit out of him in his coma right now.
I am not a fan of Ariel Sharon either (all though for different reasons than outlaw), but statements like this are uncalled for in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents.
this is a fucking pearl jam forum, not a united nations meeting or an academic conference. and is that the quote you have a problem with? I'll gladly defend that, Sharon is responsible for an overwhelming amount of innocent lives and helped perpetuate and keep this bloody conflict alive. If you cursed Hitler, I doubt many would have a problem with that, I certainly wouldn't care.
quit making up excuses, my post obviously addressed and shit on your points and lies, regardless of the decorum you should be able to respond, don't blame me if you got bored of lying over and over again.
let's just get something cleared up on the word "emotional. are you using it as an antonym to "rational".
i don't call it emotional, i call it passionate. i mean we're not talking about something insignifant here. we're talking about an entire population of people who are being cruelly and inhumanely punished, the majority of whom are children.
passion is not ranting and raving. passion is believing in something so much, especially when you have facts to back it up, that comes out strongly when people are debating something as serious as this.
500,000 kids are involved. that's pretty serious don't you think.
There is nothing wrong with being passionate. With that said, you can still be passionate while staying polite and civilized even if the other persons beliefs are opposite of your own. Sad to say that on too many posts outlaw has forgotten this. I prefer to engage in a civilized debate and not a hateful one that deteriorates to personal insults and things like:
Sharon: this guy is an absolute maniac and I hope God is torturing the shit out of him in his coma right now.
I am not a fan of Ariel Sharon either (all though for different reasons than outlaw), but statements like this are uncalled for in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents.
_outlaw made some very good points in his post. i think you are just using his comment about Sharon as an excuse to not reply.
do you go into any other threads in AMT? just curious, because what _outlaw said about that war criminal is tame compared to what is said in other threads about murderers. for an example check out the death penalty thread.
Ariel Shannon is a maniac and there are no words that anyone could ever use to accurately portray how revolting and disgusting he is as a human being, or how much pain and suffering he has caused to so many others.
Ramon was right
We have a new "traitor." Please welcome Haim Ramon. How horrible: Ramon thinks the Palestinians shouldn't negotiate with Benjamin Netanyahu.
By Gideon Levy
We have a new "traitor." Please welcome Haim Ramon. How horrible: Ramon thinks the Palestinians shouldn't negotiate with Benjamin Netanyahu. He understands, like many others, that these negotiations have no chance, no hope. He may even think they can do damage. And he said so to a Palestinian friend in a private conversation. What's the matter? If Ramon would have written it in a newspaper article, or said it in an interview, that would have been OK? So what's the problem with whispering it in the ear of Saeb Erekat?
The only problem is that Ramon didn't whisper it quietly enough. The walls have ears at the American Colony Hotel. Once again Ramon has gotten into trouble with wiretaps, and the rest is history - or actually hysteria.
Private conversations are private conversations, and what is whispered in them is nobody's business. Eavesdroppers and tattlers are less commendable than the whisperers. It can only be hoped that the Shin Bet security service was not involved in the eavesdropping and especially in the leaking. That is why the commotion that erupted over the weekend is another storm in a teacup, which is again intended to obscure the real issue.
And the real issue, as many of Ramon's critics, especially the loudmouths from his party, know full well, is that Ramon was right: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas must not join the masquerade known as direct negotiations with the current prime minister. Not only will it not advance anything, it could cause harm to Abbas, the Palestinians, to peace and also to Israel. Another failure in the longest and most futile peace process in history, as we have learned, could lead to another round of bloodshed. That is why the distance between Ramon's words and treason is precisely the distance between Netanyahu and the chance for peace. The real traitor is the prime minister, who is trying to con everyone: the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Americans.
A prime minister who says, as published in Haaretz, that a continued freeze on building in the settlements "is politically impossible" because it will lead to the breakup of his coalition government, is a prime minister who is derelict in his duty. Didn't Netanyahu commit in his Bar-Ilan University speech to two states? If he admits that he can't get his government to back a move so minuscule, so preliminary, so self-evident as a building freeze, as a step to carrying out his commitment, why do we need his government? It would be better if it fell. If he still stays in office, he is betraying his mission and his commitment.
No, Abbas must not lend a hand to this illusion. The issue is not only his shaky position, which would be further undermined if he joins the talks - a development that would run counter to Israel's interest. The issue is also not just another round of nothing, more time wasted on nothing. The issue is cooperation with an Israeli diversion tactic which is meant to lull the entire world.
Netanyahu and his government, most of whose members don't believe even for a minute in the chances of the peace process - and some have said so explicitly - want to deceive everyone and gain time and quiet so they can bolster the settlements even more. How else can the opposition to extending the freeze be interpreted? Why build if you intend to evacuate? And why do you think Netanyahu is so eager to hold direct talks, courting Abbas with sweet-talk, if not to please the Americans? If there are negotiations, there won't be international pressure. Quiet, we're in discussions, settlement can go on uninterrupted. That is why futile negotiations are dangerous negotiations.
Even the handful of real peace seekers in Israel must not support such a process. Under the cover of such talks the chances for peace will grow even dimmer. And this can and should be said everywhere: in the newspaper, in the party, and it should be whispered in every attentive ear.
But in the new McCarthyist, witch-hunting Israel, that is forbidden. Instead of holding Netanyahu's deceit up to shame, the whisperer is shamed. Instead of being impressed by the fact that there are still Israeli politicians who take the trouble to maintain ties with the Palestinian leadership, they are furiously set upon, as if Ramon disclosed state secrets to an enemy who is not an enemy. And instead of the reason for the scandal being the time that is lost, the focus is on a conversation between friends in an East Jerusalem hotel.
So here, not in a whisper and not in a hotel, I humbly add my voice to Ramon's: Abbas, don't go there.
let's just get something cleared up on the word "emotional. are you using it as an antonym to "rational".
i don't call it emotional, i call it passionate. i mean we're not talking about something insignifant here. we're talking about an entire population of people who are being cruelly and inhumanely punished, the majority of whom are children.
passion is not ranting and raving. passion is believing in something so much, especially when you have facts to back it up, that comes out strongly when people are debating something as serious as this.
500,000 kids are involved. that's pretty serious don't you think.
There is nothing wrong with being passionate. With that said, you can still be passionate while staying polite and civilized even if the other persons beliefs are opposite of your own. Sad to say that on too many posts outlaw has forgotten this. I prefer to engage in a civilized debate and not a hateful one that deteriorates to personal insults and things like:
Sharon: this guy is an absolute maniac and I hope God is torturing the shit out of him in his coma right now.
I am not a fan of Ariel Sharon either (all though for different reasons than outlaw), but statements like this are uncalled for in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents.
_outlaw made some very good points in his post. i think you are just using his comment about Sharon as an excuse to not reply.
do you go into any other threads in AMT? just curious, because what _outlaw said about that war criminal is tame compared to what is said in other threads about murderers. for an example check out the death penalty thread.
Ariel Shannon is a maniac and there are no words that anyone could ever use to accurately portray how revolting and disgusting he is as a human being, or how much pain and suffering he has caused to so many others.
The fact that in other threads outlaw expresses himself even more extremely doesn't make it OK. Personally, I do not enjoy debating with people that are full of hate on any subject. The Ariel Sharon quote I posted just happened to be the first thing I saw when looking for an example. There were plenty of other hateful examples I could have used in that post.
As for the points he made in the post, If I did not want to reply because he made "very good points" I could have just ignored him. This is not the first time that I have had a problem with the way outlaw represents himself and I just prefer not to lower myself to throwing filth as he does. As you probably remember, I had a problem with one of your posts too a few days back, but you have since returned to posting in a polite and considerate manner, despite our difference in opinions which I am sure we are both passionate about, and therefore chose to continue to respond to you. Trust me when I say it is not a matter of being "stumped".
I know that I sound really annoying in this post and full of myself, but I really do believe that the whole point of this forum is to discuss matters and to expose ourselves to people with opposite opinions than our own, not to "drop bombs" as the saying goes and to get in a shouting match (lets leave that to the real politicians).
Still can't believe I met Mike Mccready at the Guggenheim and got a pic with him!!!!!
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
_outlaw made some very good points in his post. i think you are just using his comment about Sharon as an excuse to not reply.
do you go into any other threads in AMT? just curious, because what _outlaw said about that war criminal is tame compared to what is said in other threads about murderers. for an example check out the death penalty thread.
Ariel Shannon is a maniac and there are no words that anyone could ever use to accurately portray how revolting and disgusting he is as a human being, or how much pain and suffering he has caused to so many others.
The fact that in other threads outlaw expresses himself even more extremely doesn't make it OK. Personally, I do not enjoy debating with people that are full of hate on any subject. The Ariel Sharon quote I posted just happened to be the first thing I saw when looking for an example. There were plenty of other hateful examples I could have used in that post.
As for the points he made in the post, If I did not want to reply because he made "very good points" I could have just ignored him. This is not the first time that I have had a problem with the way outlaw represents himself and I just prefer not to lower myself to throwing filth as he does. As you probably remember, I had a problem with one of your posts too a few days back, but you have since returned to posting in a polite and considerate manner, despite our difference in opinions which I am sure we are both passionate about, and therefore chose to continue to respond to you. Trust me when I say it is not a matter of being "stumped".
I know that I sound really annoying in this post and full of myself, but I really do believe that the whole point of this forum is to discuss matters and to expose ourselves to people with opposite opinions than our own, not to "drop bombs" as the saying goes and to get in a shouting match (lets leave that to the real politicians).
just to clear something up. i never said _outlaw expresses himself extremely in other threads. i wasn't talking about _outlaw.
Ramon was right
We have a new "traitor." Please welcome Haim Ramon. How horrible: Ramon thinks the Palestinians shouldn't negotiate with Benjamin Netanyahu.
By Gideon Levy
We have a new "traitor." Please welcome Haim Ramon. How horrible: Ramon thinks the Palestinians shouldn't negotiate with Benjamin Netanyahu. He understands, like many others, that these negotiations have no chance, no hope. He may even think they can do damage. And he said so to a Palestinian friend in a private conversation. What's the matter? If Ramon would have written it in a newspaper article, or said it in an interview, that would have been OK? So what's the problem with whispering it in the ear of Saeb Erekat?
The only problem is that Ramon didn't whisper it quietly enough. The walls have ears at the American Colony Hotel. Once again Ramon has gotten into trouble with wiretaps, and the rest is history - or actually hysteria.
Private conversations are private conversations, and what is whispered in them is nobody's business. Eavesdroppers and tattlers are less commendable than the whisperers. It can only be hoped that the Shin Bet security service was not involved in the eavesdropping and especially in the leaking. That is why the commotion that erupted over the weekend is another storm in a teacup, which is again intended to obscure the real issue.
And the real issue, as many of Ramon's critics, especially the loudmouths from his party, know full well, is that Ramon was right: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas must not join the masquerade known as direct negotiations with the current prime minister. Not only will it not advance anything, it could cause harm to Abbas, the Palestinians, to peace and also to Israel. Another failure in the longest and most futile peace process in history, as we have learned, could lead to another round of bloodshed. That is why the distance between Ramon's words and treason is precisely the distance between Netanyahu and the chance for peace. The real traitor is the prime minister, who is trying to con everyone: the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Americans.
A prime minister who says, as published in Haaretz, that a continued freeze on building in the settlements "is politically impossible" because it will lead to the breakup of his coalition government, is a prime minister who is derelict in his duty. Didn't Netanyahu commit in his Bar-Ilan University speech to two states? If he admits that he can't get his government to back a move so minuscule, so preliminary, so self-evident as a building freeze, as a step to carrying out his commitment, why do we need his government? It would be better if it fell. If he still stays in office, he is betraying his mission and his commitment.
No, Abbas must not lend a hand to this illusion. The issue is not only his shaky position, which would be further undermined if he joins the talks - a development that would run counter to Israel's interest. The issue is also not just another round of nothing, more time wasted on nothing. The issue is cooperation with an Israeli diversion tactic which is meant to lull the entire world.
Netanyahu and his government, most of whose members don't believe even for a minute in the chances of the peace process - and some have said so explicitly - want to deceive everyone and gain time and quiet so they can bolster the settlements even more. How else can the opposition to extending the freeze be interpreted? Why build if you intend to evacuate? And why do you think Netanyahu is so eager to hold direct talks, courting Abbas with sweet-talk, if not to please the Americans? If there are negotiations, there won't be international pressure. Quiet, we're in discussions, settlement can go on uninterrupted. That is why futile negotiations are dangerous negotiations.
Even the handful of real peace seekers in Israel must not support such a process. Under the cover of such talks the chances for peace will grow even dimmer. And this can and should be said everywhere: in the newspaper, in the party, and it should be whispered in every attentive ear.
But in the new McCarthyist, witch-hunting Israel, that is forbidden. Instead of holding Netanyahu's deceit up to shame, the whisperer is shamed. Instead of being impressed by the fact that there are still Israeli politicians who take the trouble to maintain ties with the Palestinian leadership, they are furiously set upon, as if Ramon disclosed state secrets to an enemy who is not an enemy. And instead of the reason for the scandal being the time that is lost, the focus is on a conversation between friends in an East Jerusalem hotel.
So here, not in a whisper and not in a hotel, I humbly add my voice to Ramon's: Abbas, don't go there.
As for the points he made in the post, If I did not want to reply because he made "very good points" I could have just ignored him. This is not the first time that I have had a problem with the way outlaw represents himself and I just prefer not to lower myself to throwing filth as he does.
Save the self-righteous crap. If you really had a response and didn't want to "lower yourself" you could easily have responded to just the major points with points of your own. sorry about insulting your personal hero, Ariel Sharon.
I know that I sound really annoying in this post and full of myself
I really do believe that the whole point of this forum is to discuss matters and to expose ourselves to people with opposite opinions than our own, not to "drop bombs" as the saying goes and to get in a shouting match (lets leave that to the real politicians).
I discussed matters and I countered your lies. If you're upset that I did not kiss your ass while I did it then tough luck.
Comments
Anyway, you're absolutely deluded to suggest that guys like Begin, Netanyahu and Sharon have done ANYTHING for peace.
Begin: one of the most notorious terrorist thugs of Israel was responsible for the deir yassin massacre and the king david hotel bombing with his terror group the Irgun... quite the peaceful effort, no doubt. as prime minister, he may have signed a peace agreement with Egypt, but he promoted Israeli construction of settlements in the West Bank in Gaza, initiated the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 which led to an 18-year occupation and in the first few years of the war tens of thousands of innocent lives, the Sabra and Shatila massacre which left thousands of innocent Palestinian refugees dead... he was one the most raving lunatics and has so much blood on his hands, the fact that you would even consider this guy as responsible for peace is absolutely disturbing and speaks so much about you. you're willing to forgive any harm done to other Arabs by this man because he signed a peace agreement with Egypt - which he only did not because he was interested in peace but because he did not care for the Sinai and it was in his best interest to do so. thus, he, much like yourself, doesn't give a shit about anyone else other than Israel. why, after all these years, has Israel refused to withdraw from the Golan Heights if it would mean peace with Syria? it's because Israel wants that land. why does Israel refuse to withdraw from the West Bank if it would mean a two-state solution and an "end" to the conflict? it's because Israel wants that land.
Netanyahu: Not much else to say about this guy, he increased settlements at an insane rate during the 90s and helped kill the Oslo peace process after the former left-wing prime minister Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing nut. for more info on this guy why don't you watch the recently leaked video where he said all this himself? you probably did watch the video and saw nothing wrong with it.
Sharon: this guy is an absolute maniac and I hope God is torturing the shit out of him in his coma right now.
while I'm absolutely no fan of left-wing governments of Israel (or what they consider "left-wing") especially since the Gaza massacre occured DURING the tenure of such a government, right wing governments haven't done shit for peace! Israel by nature is not a peaceful country since, like most colonial powers, it requires the use of violence to subdue the land's native population.
Do you really wanna get into this now? The fact that you're quoting Dennis Ross already shows enough, I'm just waiting for you to pull out some Martin Indyk quotes. The place of blame on Arafat for the failure of Camp David is an absolute lie.
Arafat wanted to pursue the intifada? The intifada had nothing to do with Arafat, it had everything to do with the fact that during the Oslo "peace" process, Israel was in fact exhausting and debilitating Palestinian society! As a result of settlement expansion, an increase in checkpoints, and limited movement, the Palestinian economy suffered tremendously during the Oslo period—more specifically, from 1996-1999 while Netanyahu was in office.
I recommend Robert Malley's take on the Camp David talks over Dennis Ross':
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... of-errors/
One huge reason why Palestinians want pre-conditions before talks is because, as Malley says regarding the failed Oslo process and the subsequent Camp David talks:
"If Israel still held on to land that was supposed to be turned over during the interim phase [after the 1998 Wye Agreement], then the Palestinians would have to negotiate over that land as well during permanent status negotiations. And while Barak claimed that unfulfilled interim obligations would be quickly forgotten in the event that the summit succeeded, Arafat feared that they might just as quickly be ignored in the event that it failed. In other words, Barak's seemed a take-it-or-leave-it proposition in which leaving it meant forsaking not only the permanent status proposal, but also a further withdrawal of Israeli forces, the Jerusalem villages, the prisoner releases, and other interim commitments. Worse, it meant being confronted with the new settlement units in areas that Barak self-confidently assumed would be annexed to Israel under a permanent status deal."
The Israelis thus have so many different trump cards. For example, halting settlement expansion should NOT be a negotiable issue, it should simply be stopped. Furthermore, how can you have permanent status negotiations regarding the status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank while Palestinians are being forcibly removed for Jewish settlers DURING these talks?? it's absolutely illogical.
Furthermore, since the Israelis had doubled the number of settlements by July 2000 since the beginning of the Oslo peace process it had been apparent for nearly seven years that Israel was not interested in a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories. Martin Indyk himself who is totally pro-Israeli is quoted as saying:
"Shlomo Ben-Ami [the Israeli negotiator] reported to [President Clinton] that he had put an Israeli map on the table that showed a Palestinian state in 86 percent of the West Bank but that Abu Ala [Ahmed Qurei; Palestinian negotiator] would not put a map down because he argued that the borders of the Palestinian state had already been established by U.N. Security Council resolutions, that is, the June 4, 1967, lines."
The Palestinians DID have a counter-solution, it was the same solution that the entire world has constantly called for, with minor adjustments. But the problem was that Israel's solution to the West Bank was horrible - anyone who looks at the maps they presented could see clearly.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It's posts like this that remind me why I started to ignore you a couple of weeks ago.
I have no problem with the things and issues that you bring up and could address them, but I do have a problem with the manner in which you choose to represent them (rude and hateful). There are plenty of members of this forum who have the same beliefs as you on this issue and believe in them as strongly as you do, but what makes them different from you is the way they carry themselves (gimmesometruth, polaris X, redrock, pepe...). It would do you some good to learn from them how to publicly debate some one who has different views than you on an intellectual base and not a pure emotional one. Until you do, I will go back to ignoring you.
Have a good weekend.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
i don't call it emotional, i call it passionate. i mean we're not talking about something insignifant here. we're talking about an entire population of people who are being cruelly and inhumanely punished, the majority of whom are children.
passion is not ranting and raving. passion is believing in something so much, especially when you have facts to back it up, that comes out strongly when people are debating something as serious as this.
500,000 kids are involved. that's pretty serious don't you think.
There is nothing wrong with being passionate. With that said, you can still be passionate while staying polite and civilized even if the other persons beliefs are opposite of your own. Sad to say that on too many posts outlaw has forgotten this. I prefer to engage in a civilized debate and not a hateful one that deteriorates to personal insults and things like:
I am not a fan of Ariel Sharon either (all though for different reasons than outlaw), but statements like this are uncalled for in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
quit making up excuses, my post obviously addressed and shit on your points and lies, regardless of the decorum you should be able to respond, don't blame me if you got bored of lying over and over again.
Then, maybe that is what both sides need to work on first... actions that build trust... which works both ways.
Hail, Hail!!!
do you go into any other threads in AMT? just curious, because what _outlaw said about that war criminal is tame compared to what is said in other threads about murderers. for an example check out the death penalty thread.
Ariel Shannon is a maniac and there are no words that anyone could ever use to accurately portray how revolting and disgusting he is as a human being, or how much pain and suffering he has caused to so many others.
Ramon was right
We have a new "traitor." Please welcome Haim Ramon. How horrible: Ramon thinks the Palestinians shouldn't negotiate with Benjamin Netanyahu.
By Gideon Levy
We have a new "traitor." Please welcome Haim Ramon. How horrible: Ramon thinks the Palestinians shouldn't negotiate with Benjamin Netanyahu. He understands, like many others, that these negotiations have no chance, no hope. He may even think they can do damage. And he said so to a Palestinian friend in a private conversation. What's the matter? If Ramon would have written it in a newspaper article, or said it in an interview, that would have been OK? So what's the problem with whispering it in the ear of Saeb Erekat?
The only problem is that Ramon didn't whisper it quietly enough. The walls have ears at the American Colony Hotel. Once again Ramon has gotten into trouble with wiretaps, and the rest is history - or actually hysteria.
Private conversations are private conversations, and what is whispered in them is nobody's business. Eavesdroppers and tattlers are less commendable than the whisperers. It can only be hoped that the Shin Bet security service was not involved in the eavesdropping and especially in the leaking. That is why the commotion that erupted over the weekend is another storm in a teacup, which is again intended to obscure the real issue.
And the real issue, as many of Ramon's critics, especially the loudmouths from his party, know full well, is that Ramon was right: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas must not join the masquerade known as direct negotiations with the current prime minister. Not only will it not advance anything, it could cause harm to Abbas, the Palestinians, to peace and also to Israel. Another failure in the longest and most futile peace process in history, as we have learned, could lead to another round of bloodshed. That is why the distance between Ramon's words and treason is precisely the distance between Netanyahu and the chance for peace. The real traitor is the prime minister, who is trying to con everyone: the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Americans.
A prime minister who says, as published in Haaretz, that a continued freeze on building in the settlements "is politically impossible" because it will lead to the breakup of his coalition government, is a prime minister who is derelict in his duty. Didn't Netanyahu commit in his Bar-Ilan University speech to two states? If he admits that he can't get his government to back a move so minuscule, so preliminary, so self-evident as a building freeze, as a step to carrying out his commitment, why do we need his government? It would be better if it fell. If he still stays in office, he is betraying his mission and his commitment.
No, Abbas must not lend a hand to this illusion. The issue is not only his shaky position, which would be further undermined if he joins the talks - a development that would run counter to Israel's interest. The issue is also not just another round of nothing, more time wasted on nothing. The issue is cooperation with an Israeli diversion tactic which is meant to lull the entire world.
Netanyahu and his government, most of whose members don't believe even for a minute in the chances of the peace process - and some have said so explicitly - want to deceive everyone and gain time and quiet so they can bolster the settlements even more. How else can the opposition to extending the freeze be interpreted? Why build if you intend to evacuate? And why do you think Netanyahu is so eager to hold direct talks, courting Abbas with sweet-talk, if not to please the Americans? If there are negotiations, there won't be international pressure. Quiet, we're in discussions, settlement can go on uninterrupted. That is why futile negotiations are dangerous negotiations.
Even the handful of real peace seekers in Israel must not support such a process. Under the cover of such talks the chances for peace will grow even dimmer. And this can and should be said everywhere: in the newspaper, in the party, and it should be whispered in every attentive ear.
But in the new McCarthyist, witch-hunting Israel, that is forbidden. Instead of holding Netanyahu's deceit up to shame, the whisperer is shamed. Instead of being impressed by the fact that there are still Israeli politicians who take the trouble to maintain ties with the Palestinian leadership, they are furiously set upon, as if Ramon disclosed state secrets to an enemy who is not an enemy. And instead of the reason for the scandal being the time that is lost, the focus is on a conversation between friends in an East Jerusalem hotel.
So here, not in a whisper and not in a hotel, I humbly add my voice to Ramon's: Abbas, don't go there.
As for the points he made in the post, If I did not want to reply because he made "very good points" I could have just ignored him. This is not the first time that I have had a problem with the way outlaw represents himself and I just prefer not to lower myself to throwing filth as he does. As you probably remember, I had a problem with one of your posts too a few days back, but you have since returned to posting in a polite and considerate manner, despite our difference in opinions which I am sure we are both passionate about, and therefore chose to continue to respond to you. Trust me when I say it is not a matter of being "stumped".
I know that I sound really annoying in this post and full of myself, but I really do believe that the whole point of this forum is to discuss matters and to expose ourselves to people with opposite opinions than our own, not to "drop bombs" as the saying goes and to get in a shouting match (lets leave that to the real politicians).
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
Guess I misinterpreted that.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
thanks for posting.